Abortion - time for a new debate?
Discussion
BliarOut said:
But you condone that murder...
Exactly, struggle isn't it!bit like stealing MP3's or Movies, it stealing plain and simple, if we do it, don't lie to ourselves - and before the keyboard warriors jump on me, no I'm not comparing.
I just feel that we must face up to the realities of the decisions which we take, if we take a human life - for whatever reasons - we are taking a human life.
Go stand is special school (for severely handicapped children), I have and then consider that they've had the same teacher for 19 years and at 19 state funding for teaching finishes and they are put out to centres - and then ask yourself what quality of life they have....
dundarach said:
A rape victim should have the choice, it's her body, never EVER have I suggested that abortion should NOT happen...
All I said was lets not sugar coat it, it is what it is - the killing of a human, intentionally, which is obviously murder?!?
No it isn't. It's the intentional killing of a human being. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being. Legal abortion cannot by definition be murder, other than in your opinion.All I said was lets not sugar coat it, it is what it is - the killing of a human, intentionally, which is obviously murder?!?
dundarach said:
A rape victim should have the choice, it's her body, never EVER have I suggested that abortion should NOT happen...
All I said was lets not sugar coat it, it is what it is - the killing of a human, intentionally, which is obviously murder?!?
If we are arguing the semantics of abortion, then clearly it is not murder as per the current legal definition. Derek kindly provided the details of the act above, but as abortion within those guidelines is legal, it clearly cannot be 'unlawful' killing.All I said was lets not sugar coat it, it is what it is - the killing of a human, intentionally, which is obviously murder?!?
Your argument appears to be that the moment the egg is fertilized, it is a human being, and that any act which destroys that fertilized egg is 'murder' by your definition. Therefore, anyone who suffers a miscarriage, or has multiple fertilized eggs which then result in a single birth, or any of a number of weird and wonderful things that can happen to a fertilized egg during the gestation period that result in a non-viable birth is guilty of 'murder' (or at best 'manslaughter').
Is that really your position?
roboxm3 said:
No it isn't. It's the intentional killing of a human being. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being. Legal abortion cannot by definition be murder, other than in your opinion.
Laws are made by man, to suit our consciousness and sense of morals, they also change....Just because the government says something is lawful don't make it right - or shall I start quoting laws which we'll all agree are wrong.....
SpeckledJim said:
Well the discussion is about a principle. The principle wouldn't change if it were concerning 1 foetus or 1m.
No, my point was about the numbers. I find them disturbing.The principle is different, IMHO.
Too often I hear a politician trotting out the tired cliche "...if it only saves one life then it is a price worth paying..." as an excuse for spending x millions on some pet project.
But if life is that sacred, why are we terminating it on an industrial scale?
mattmurdock said:
If we are arguing the semantics of abortion, then clearly it is not murder as per the current legal definition. Derek kindly provided the details of the act above, but as abortion within those guidelines is legal, it clearly cannot be 'unlawful' killing.
Your argument appears to be that the moment the egg is fertilized, it is a human being, and that any act which destroys that fertilized egg is 'murder' by your definition. Therefore, anyone who suffers a miscarriage, or has multiple fertilized eggs which then result in a single birth, or any of a number of weird and wonderful things that can happen to a fertilized egg during the gestation period that result in a non-viable birth is guilty of 'murder' (or at best 'manslaughter').
Is that really your position?
So miscarriage is intentional is it?Your argument appears to be that the moment the egg is fertilized, it is a human being, and that any act which destroys that fertilized egg is 'murder' by your definition. Therefore, anyone who suffers a miscarriage, or has multiple fertilized eggs which then result in a single birth, or any of a number of weird and wonderful things that can happen to a fertilized egg during the gestation period that result in a non-viable birth is guilty of 'murder' (or at best 'manslaughter').
Is that really your position?
Or any of the other things you mention?
I'm quite clear - but people are reading what they want into it:
When a human CHOOSES to kill another human its murder...
The important word here is CHOICE
The Don of Croy said:
I don't want to get into the semantics over 'is this viable' as, frankly, I haven't a clue what is...
What I cannot get my head around is the 'requirement' to abort nearly 12,000 foetus' every month...
They cannot all be a) product of criminal sex crime (can they?), b) odds-on medically affected so as to mitigate against an enjoyable life, c) potential off-spring of chavvy underclass unsuited to child rearing (current assessment of benefits recipients would suggest not)...
People, it's 380 odd per day we're terminating. Surely that is too many?
How many is too many? There are loads of women between the age of 16 and 45 who can and do get pregnent by accident. Their choice if they want to abort. What I cannot get my head around is the 'requirement' to abort nearly 12,000 foetus' every month...
They cannot all be a) product of criminal sex crime (can they?), b) odds-on medically affected so as to mitigate against an enjoyable life, c) potential off-spring of chavvy underclass unsuited to child rearing (current assessment of benefits recipients would suggest not)...
People, it's 380 odd per day we're terminating. Surely that is too many?
Stop being a prig and get on with your life.
dundarach said:
No - it really is, you call it what you like - we are killing a human intentionally - what else is it?
OR
Define for me when a human is a human, 20 weeks, birth when?
You are not killing a human, IMO, until that foetus is viable (currently the 24 week mark, although a few younger have survived at birth). Abortion is, by definition, aborting a foetus.OR
Define for me when a human is a human, 20 weeks, birth when?
dundarach said:
mattmurdock said:
If we are arguing the semantics of abortion, then clearly it is not murder as per the current legal definition. Derek kindly provided the details of the act above, but as abortion within those guidelines is legal, it clearly cannot be 'unlawful' killing.
Your argument appears to be that the moment the egg is fertilized, it is a human being, and that any act which destroys that fertilized egg is 'murder' by your definition. Therefore, anyone who suffers a miscarriage, or has multiple fertilized eggs which then result in a single birth, or any of a number of weird and wonderful things that can happen to a fertilized egg during the gestation period that result in a non-viable birth is guilty of 'murder' (or at best 'manslaughter').
Is that really your position?
So miscarriage is intentional is it?Your argument appears to be that the moment the egg is fertilized, it is a human being, and that any act which destroys that fertilized egg is 'murder' by your definition. Therefore, anyone who suffers a miscarriage, or has multiple fertilized eggs which then result in a single birth, or any of a number of weird and wonderful things that can happen to a fertilized egg during the gestation period that result in a non-viable birth is guilty of 'murder' (or at best 'manslaughter').
Is that really your position?
Or any of the other things you mention?
I'm quite clear - but people are reading what they want into it:
When a human CHOOSES to kill another human its murder...
The important word here is CHOICE
dundarach said:
So miscarriage is intentional is it?
Or any of the other things you mention?
I'm quite clear - but people are reading what they want into it:
When a human CHOOSES to kill another human its murder...
The important word here is CHOICE
So if a doctor chooses to let the mother die, rather than terminate the pregnancy, he is a murderer either way? I think the issue people are having is your statements are extremely black/white. There are a variety of different situations where people choose to kill another human being (soldiers in wartime, death penalty, assisted suicide) and depending on the legal framework in place and the specific circumstances those would be regarded by some people as morally correct, some people as morally wrong, some people as lawful and some people as unlawful. There are rarely absolutes, which is why we have the laws and social structures we do have - to provide rules that are then discussed and debated.Or any of the other things you mention?
I'm quite clear - but people are reading what they want into it:
When a human CHOOSES to kill another human its murder...
The important word here is CHOICE
You are right that laws can be changed, and that what is regarded as legal now may be reclassified as unlawful killing in the future, but to state that it is obvious that termination of a fertilized egg within the current legal framework is 'murder' is a fallacy.
sugerbear said:
The Don of Croy said:
Since it became legal in 1968 we've terminated 6.4 million British foetus'!
Because what the country really needs is 6.4 million extra people to educate, feed, house, find employment for etc etc. It's pretty clear to me that it should not be legal to kill a baby that could be born and live. I would limit abortions, other than in some excpetional circumstances, to 13 weeks (to give time after the 12 week scan to make a decision).
dundarach said:
Laws are made by man, to suit our consciousness and sense of morals, they also change....
Just because the government says something is lawful don't make it right - or shall I start quoting laws which we'll all agree are wrong.....
There may well be laws which we'll all agree are wrong but this obviously isn't one of them, so to keep referring to abortion as murder comes across as ignorant. Just because the government says something is lawful don't make it right - or shall I start quoting laws which we'll all agree are wrong.....
The Don of Croy said:
Not sure I see the relevance?
I'm not questioning the principle, more the numbers. Just seems terribly high...
The relevance is that you seem to be struggling to understand the difference between ending or taking a life and murder. Legal abortion, by its very definition, cannot be murder. I'm not questioning the principle, more the numbers. Just seems terribly high...
If you are not questioning the principle, but the numbers then your problem is not with abortion but with unwanted pregnancy. Which is a totally different topic for discussion.
dundarach said:
Define for me when a human is a human, 20 weeks, birth when?
This is exactly the point, and there is no answer. But most people accept there should be some sensible cut-off point.12 weeks would IMO be far too low.
24 is arguably too high these days - but the statistics show very few abortions take place that late without some medical reason. (Remember abortion can take place up to any stage WITH good medical reason.)
Personally I'd set the limit at 20 for the time being, simply because it's a nice round number.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff